getCableTestLogs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the outputs but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no output schema and three parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (history, per-port results, cable length, fault detection). It is complete for the intended use case, though it omits potential issues like pagination or result limits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the schema (e.g., siteId, switchMac, customHeaders). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get cable test logs for a switch' and lists specific outputs (history, per-port results, cable length, fault detection), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'getCableTestFullResults', which may return different results, but the name and description imply logs vs full results.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'useful for diagnosing physical layer connectivity issues,' giving context for use. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'getCableTestFullResults'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.